A/65/273 44. In certain cases, the definition of torture in national criminal law is too narrow and/or leaves out important elements established in article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In the case of Mongolia, the definition fails to include any of the essential elements of torture, including that the act (or omission) causes severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, that it is intentionally inflicted for a specific purpose and by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official acting in an official capacity. Article 251 of the Mongolian Code of Criminal Procedure was amended in 2008 but the provision does not apply to all public officials or persons acting in an official capacity. 45. With regard to the first element of the definition (causing severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental), both Georgia and Togo limit their definitions to physical pain. The legislation of Jordan only partly covers the aspect of mental pain or suffering. The definition in Paraguay makes torture very difficult to prove, as it requires the intent to destroy or seriously damage the personality of the victim, hence excluding many acts that would be considered as torture under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 46. The second element of the definition in the Convention (intention) is lacking from the definition of torture in the legislation of both Georgia and Togo. With regard to the element of the involvement of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity, the legislation in neither Togo nor Jordan differentiates between private actors and public officials. Kazakhstan limits criminal responsibility to public officials and does not criminalize torture committed by others acting in an official capacity or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of public officials. 47. The criminal codes in many countries contain provisions outlawing certain acts which may fall within the scope of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, such as the infliction of bodily injuries or the use of duress. Nevertheless, while some of those acts may be part of an act of torture, the criminal codes fall short of providing comprehensive protection to the physical and psychological integrity of the victims. Some of the most sophisticated torture methods do not cause any physical injuries, but cause extreme pain and suffering. 48. The Special Rapporteur found legislation where the definition was in line with the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in some countries, such as the Republic of Moldova. The definition in the Sri Lankan legislation is in accordance with the Convention; however, it does not include “suffering”. Moreover, since the implementation of the Emergency Regulations, most of the safeguards against torture either do not apply or are simply disregarded. In Equatorial Guinea, the definition was mainly in line with the Convention, with a catch-all clause broad enough to comply with it. 2. Adequacy of penalties 49. The fact that torture is either not codified or not properly defined in national criminal laws facilitates too lenient penalties, not commensurate with the gravity of the crime. This is another factor that can contribute to a climate of impunity by 10-48049 11